This article will examine partial prohibition of non-medically sanctioned use (“non-medical use”) of mind-altering drugs as a method of controlling and regulating non-medical use of these substances. Partial prohibition is a policy under which non-medical (1) simple possessions,1 and use, (2) importation, production and cultivation for personal use, and less certainly, (3) small gifts, and (4) even small sales, of mind-altering drugs would not be criminalized or prohibited.2 However, non-medical importation, production, and cultivation for the purpose of distribution; non-medical commercial distribution, and possibly all non-medical distribution; and operating a vehicle under the influence of a mind-altering drug, would be prohibited and criminalzied. Mind-altering drugs, as the term is used in this article, are the “controlled substances”:3 cocaine, amphetamines, and similar stimulants; barbiturates, non-barbiturate sedatives and hypnotics (for example, Quaalude), and minor tranquilizers such as Valium and Librium; strong hallucinogens such as LSD and PCP (“angel dust”); marihuana; and the opiate narcotics. It is the argument of this article that partial prohibition is a better method of control over most of “the controlled substances” than either the total prohibition of their non-medical distribution and use (prohibition of importation, production and cultivation regardless of their purposes, of distribution and of all possession) that prevails almost entirely today in this country, or than legalization of non-medical use of these drugs. Specifically, I view partial prohibition as the preferred method of control over all controlled substances other than marihuana ( i.e., heroin and other opiates, cocaine, amphetamines, and similar stimulants; barbiturates, non-barbiturate sedatives and hypnotics, and minor tranquilizers; and hallucinogens such as LSD and PCP). For marihuana, I see partial prohibition (which we are beginning to approach in “decriminalization” of possession and sometimes small gifts also) as better than total prohibition. But weighing the potential for harm of marihuana against the social costs of both total and partial prohibition, I submit that it would be preferable if marihuana were legalized or regulated.4 In addition, I propose that we institute carefully controlled experimental outpatient programs in which heroin addicts are lawfully maintained on heroin or injectable methadone.
Seven-year follow-up of heroin addicts: drug use and outcome.